Refinements of Guth’s Model of an Inflationary Universe

Phillip I. Good, Ph.D., drgood@statcourse.com

Information Research, 205 W. Utica Ave., Huntington Beach CA 92648, USA.

Guth1 posits the rapid expansion of a scalar field of constant energy to explain the

uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. At a random point in time and space,

quantum tunneling from a point in the field results in a Plank volume of ordinary space

embedded in the still-expanding field. Within this volume, the symmetry between the

gravitational and other forces had been broken.

In this present refinement of his model, we posit that the two types of space continue

to expand but along separate lines. The scalar field continues to expand at the speed of

light. Quantum tunneling from the scalar field continues to occur at random points in

time and space; the resulting regions of ordinary space continue to expand a Plank

volume at a time in the form of self-avoiding random walks.

The result is a universe in line with present-day observations, a universe consisting

primarily of dark voids in which the occasional separate strand of light-producing

(galaxy-containing) regions may be discerned. The simultaneous presence of both phases

accounts for the distinction between large- and small-scale galactic distributions,

reconciles disagreements in calculating the age of the universe, and obviates the need to

assume the existence of cold dark matter.

Keywords: dark matter, early universe, false vacuum, scalar field, inflationary universe,

random walk.
PACS: 98.80 Bp

1. Introduction

We assume as do Guth1 and others that our universe began as an expanding scalar field. A first-

order phase transition occurred when the temperature dropped below the grand-unification and

Weinberg-Salam energies and a Planck volume of a new phase in which the symmetry between

the gravitational and other forces was broken formed surrounded by the scalar field. As Planck

second succeeded Planck second, the Planck volume of the broken-symmetry phase would have

extended itself asymmetrically, a Planck volume at a time, via a self-avoiding random walk. .

The scalar field would have continued to expand at the speed of light to occupy a sphere n3

units in size after n Plank seconds of time. As shown in the next section, the broken-symmetry

phase, also limited by light speed, would only have been able to fill a fractal volume of n2.6 units.

The result would have been dendritic expansion of the broken-symmetry phase (as in the

formation of ice crystals in super-cooled water) rather than nucleation (as in the formation of

bubbles of steam in super-heated water) as described by Coleman2 and others. Subsequently,

when a further Planck volume of the broken-symmetry phase formed in after a random time

period in a disparate and random region of the scalar field, it would have zero probability of

interconnecting with the first and subsequent smears of broken-symmetry regions that formed.

The result of such independent development is consistent with the observed honeycomb-like

distribution of galaxies in the observable universe with large regions empty of observable matter

interrupted by smears of light-yielding regions,3

2. Details of the Expansion

We assume the existence of an exponentially expanding Higgs Field of constant energy density in

the early universe1,4. The field has both a relative minimum (or false vacuum) and an absolute
minimum. Quantum tunneling from the relative to the absolute minimum results in the

production of a Planck volume of ordinary space. There would be a non-zero, although

infinitesimal Poisson probability that two or more Planck volumes would be produced

simultaneously.

Figure 1 illustrates, albeit in only two dimensions, one possible realization of the initial

expansion of a non-symmetric phase. The assumptions on which this figure is based are three in

number:

1. Expansion proceeds in discrete units.

2. Each unit expands separately.

3. Expansion proceeds in a random direction.

Figure 1: Hypothetical expansion in discrete units of EMR-producing space during the first four

Planck seconds.

By using fluorescence microscopy Haber et al.5 observed that DNA molecules extend themselves

in just such a fashion. See Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2. Nonspherical shape of a random-walk polymer, as observed by Haber et al5

Figure 3. Growth of a random-walk polymer, as observed by Haber et al5

As conjectured by Kuhn6 and Flory7 and tabled by Hughes8 self-avoiding random walks in 3-

dimensions have an expected length after N steps of N0.6 rather than the N0.5 expected of the

simple random walk or diffusion. Instead of a bubble N0.5 in radius one would expect to see an

oblong form of shape N0.6 N0.51N0.4.

Figure 4 depicts the hypothetical probability distribution of the aspect ratios, that is,

maximum diameter to minimum diameter, expected of such irregular figures or smears.

Figure 4. Hypothetical distribution of the aspect ratios of an expanding volume of discrete space

resulting from a self-avoiding random walk. Reproduced from Haber et al5; based on their

observations of the growth of a random-walk polymer.

3. The Myth of The Bubble

“[The growth of the non-symmetric phase]…closely parallel the boiling of a superheated

fluid…bubbles of the vapor phase materialize in the fluid phase...the bubble expands until it

converts the available fluid to vapor.”2

The use of the term “bubble” in past descriptions of the initial development of the non-symmetric

phase is unfortunate as it implies a shape symmetric in three dimensions of minimum surface area

and maximum volume. Instead, expansion of the high-energy phase would take place a Planck

volume at a time, expanding in an arbitrary direction each time, behaving as a self-avoiding

random walk rather than as a diffusion process. Eventually, the multi-branched chain of Planck

volumes would assume a shape with maximum surface area and minimum volume resulting in the

maximum dissipation of energy.

 A bubble of steam continues to be fed by high-energy molecules from its surroundings until,

in Coleman’s words, “it converts the ordinary fluid to vapor.” A “bubble” of ordinary space,

launched full borne, repels and is repelled by the surrounding false vacuum. It would not, as

Coleman proposes, spread “through the universe converting false vacuum to true.”9

Instead, the early universe would witness dendritic expansion (as in the formation of ice

crystals in super-cooled water) rather than nucleation (as in the formation of bubbles of steam in

super-heated water). Thermodynamic effects might ultimately replace the quantum, but by then

the asymmetric shape of the “bubble” or “smear” is established.

An attempt at proof of the “bubble’s” spherical nature10 upon which Coleman2 relies, rests on

two unproven assumptions: first, that the form of the original “bubble,” a point or Plank volume,

can be represented by a wave function analogous to that of a moving particle, and, second, that

this function is continuously differentiable in all its arguments. The assumption of a wave

function fails for the same reason Gertrude Stein despaired of Oakland, “there is no ‘there’ there”

over which a wave function may extend. At the instant the “bubble” is created by quantum

tunneling, the only space it can occupy is that of a single Planck volume. And because an isolated

Planck volume or countable set of such volumes lack a topology, the corresponding wave

function cannot be continuously differentiable.

Other proofs of the “bubble’s” spherical nature11, 12 rely on analytic continuation of wave

functions from the symmetric to the non-symmetric phase. But if the universe is to be viewed as

discrete, built of Planck volumes or loops or strings, 13,14,15 then wave functions are only

approximations, highly accurate on present-day scales, but hopelessly inadequate for describing

the first Planck time units of the observable universe.

The tunneling geometry from a Lorentzian space time to a Euclidian one 11,12, 2, 16 as with the

boundaryless view17 requires us to accept the improbable: a continuous universe fully-formed at

birth.
 On the other hand, as the transition from the false vacuum occurs at random in both time and

space and with a probability that is the same at all coordinates, our universe is globally (if not

locally) homogeneous as described by the “bubble” model.

4. Transfer of Energy

According to Linde18 and Hawking et al.19, although no proof is offered, “the energy released by

bubble formation would be transformed into the kinetic energy of the bubble walls and would

cause the walls to expand outwards with uniform acceleration.”

But the decrease in temperature is due only in part to the creation of kinetic energy; the

balance will come from dissipation via EMR through the boundary to the surroundings. An

oblong shape with maximum surface area for minimum volume would optimize such transfer.

Reference is also made by Hawking and his colleagues (and earlier 3, 20), again without proof,

to the inevitability of collisions between bubbles. Given that the scalar field continues its

expansion at the speed of light and that the proportion of the total universe occupied by the

oblong energy/matter-containing forms is vanishingly small, with the volume occupied by the

self-avoiding random walk having a fractal dimension between 3 and 2, such collisions are

extremely unlikely. The results are few or no monopoles created and baryon asymmetry.18

Because the decay of the false vacuum and the formation of fractal cracks is ongoing, one

should expect to detect EMR from regions of observable space where no EMR had been observed

before, albeit such appearances might be on a scale of thousands or tens of thousands of years.

The resultant picture of the universe (Figure 5) is similar to that expected from a percolation

model of domain formation with a low bias probability. 21

Figure 5. Depiction of a hypothetical universe resulting from a self-avoiding random walk

consisting of false vacuum (clear regions) interrupted by irregular smears of a non-symmetric

matter-containing phase (solid regions). This figure is taken from Coulson et al.21 and was

generated by a computer simulation of a percolation model of domain formation in three-

dimensions with bias probability p =0.1.21

5. Interactions

Though symmetric and non-symmetric regions interact, the effects of one upon the other are quite

different in nature. The symmetric region repels mass-possessing particles from the non-

symmetric region.22 It affects their movement within the non-symmetric region and acts as an

absolute barrier to their passage. Photons on the contrary can pass freely through the false

vacuum. Because the energy field is uniform throughout the false vacuum, the geodesics are

straight lines in Lorentz space.

The non-symmetric region provides an absolute barrier to the further expansion of the false

vacuum in the direction of that region. The expansion of the universe as viewed by a fixed

observer thus takes place only in the non-symmetric regions. While it is still true that zc=HoL to
a first approximation, the Hubble time is LH/c where  is the proportion of a ray of length LH

outward from a fixed observer that intersects non-symmetric regions.

6. Transition to a Manifold

Figures 1 through 4 depict the expansion of a random chain. The expansion of the broken-

symmetry phase at the expense of the surrounding false vacuum is more accurately depicted as

the expansion of a random surface, with each surface element capable of extension at each instant

in time. The behavior of the radius of gyration of such random surfaces has been shown to be

similar to that of the self-avoiding random walk.23-25

Suppose we view one such expanding surface and the surrounding false vacuum as if they

were superimposed on a three dimensional lattice each element of which comprises exactly one

Planck volume. Let p denote the probability that a Plank volume of the false vacuum will

spontaneously decay via quantum tunneling in the next instant into the broken-symmetry phase.

Let P denote the probability that a Plank volume of the broken-symmetry phase will expand into a

specific Planck volume of the immediately adjacent false vacuum adjacent in the next instant.

We assume that P is many orders of magnitude larger than p.

The probability that a specific Plank volume of the false vacuum that is adjacent to k Plank

volumes of the broken-symmetry phase, k= 0, 1, . . ., 26, is given by the formula: 1 – (1-p)(1-P)k.

The process of expansion is self-smoothing for as k increases, this probability approaches 1. The

volume occupied by the expanding broken-symmetry phase, though remaining irregular in shape

and decidedly non-spherical, fills in with the only rough edges appearing on its surface. After a

sufficient period of time has passed, say 10,000 Plank seconds, this volume can be closely

approximated by a continuous manifold.

 7. Observations

Images from the Hubble telescope and other contemporary sources have given us a portrait of a

universe consisting of oblongs or smears of mass-containing light-yielding particles in an

otherwise empty void. The model proposed here, a variant of the original inflationary model,3

would account for just such a structure.

The still-expanding scalar field accounts for two sets of phenomena, one connected with the

early universe that was to determine all that was to follow and one whose impact was to be

observed only after several minutes of time.

At the origin of our universe, as Guth1 notes, this field provides an explanation for the

homogenous expansion of the universe and the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background

that we observe today. Later, it would be responsible for all the phenomena associated,

erroneously, with dark matter such as galactic rotation.

On the other hand, the cold dark-matter model cannot simultaneously fit large-scale and

small-scale galaxy distributions.26 The present model accounts for the differences between the

two. The large-scale distribution of galaxies results from the creation of independent smears.

The small-scale distribution results from gravitational attraction within each smear and

gravitational repulsion from the false vacuum (void) without.

As the “smears” built of discrete Planck volumes appear at random in the false vacuum, the

fundamental homogeneity and flatness of the universe achieved by inflation is not affected.

Gravitational attraction among the smears of mass-containing space will slow the expansion of

our observable portion of the universe, both because the smears are drawn closer together and

because further expansion of the intervening false vacuum is inhibited. The negative gravity of

the surrounding voids affects the movement of material within the smears. The extent of the

scalar field is such that it will have a greater influence on galactic rotation within the smear than

the masses in the smear itself. This influence would be proportional to (1–)3 where  is the
proportion defined in the preceding section. The present model obviates the need to assume the

existence of cold dark matter and accounts for the discrepancy between estimates of the age of the

universe based on the Hubble constant and the ages of Type II stars.

The cracks or oriented smears in the false vacuum appear randomly in time and in space thus

accounting for the observed non-uniformities in the cosmic microwave background.27

References

1. A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D. 23, 347 (1981).

2. S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2929 (1977). Phys. Rev. D. 21, 3305 (1977).

3. M.J. Geller et al., Astron. J. 114, 2205 (1997).

4. A. D. Linde, Rep. Prog. Phys. 42, 389 (1979).

5. C. Haber C; S.A Ruiz and D. Wirtz, PNAS. 97, 10792 (2000).

6. W. Kuhn, Kolloid-Z. 68, 2–11 (1934).

7. P. J. Flory, J. Chem Physics. 17: 303 (1949).

8. B.D. Hughes, Random Walks and Random Environments. Volume 1: Random Walks.

p488. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995).

9. A. Vilenkin, Phys Rev. D. 27, 2848 (1983).

10. S. Coleman, V. Glaser and A. Martin, Commun. Math. Phys. 58, 211 (1978).

11. T.D.Lee and G.C. Wick, Phys. Rev. D. 9, 2291 (1974).

12. YaB Zel'dovich; I. Yu. Kobrazarev and L.B. Okun, Sov. Phys-JETP 40, 1 (1975).

13. Rovelli C, http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/index.html

14. Rovelli C, In Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in

Quantum Gravity, C. Callender and N. Huggett, eds., (Cambridge University Press, 2001,

p 101).
15. S. D. Mather, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D. 12, 1681 (2003).

16. A.O Barvinsky and A.Y. Kamenshchik,A.Y, Physical Review D., 50, 5093 (1994).

17. J. B. Hartle and S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D. 28, 2960 (1983).

18. A. D. Linde, Physics Letters B, 108, 389 (1982).

19. S. W. Hawking; I.G. Moss; and J.M. Stewart , Phys. Rev. D. 26, 2681 (1982).

20. A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D. 23, 876 (1981).

21. D. Coulson, Z. Lalak and B. Ovrut, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9508226.

22. I. Zlatev; L. Wang and P. J. Steinhard, Phys.Rev.Lett. 82, 896 (1999)

23. A. Maritan and A. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 123–126 (1984)

24. A. L. Stella, E. Orlandini, I. Beichl, F. Sullivan, M. C. Tesi, and T. L. Einstein, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 69, 3650–3653 (1992)

25. C. Vanderzande, Lattice Models of Polymers, (Cambridge University Press, 1998,

Chapter 11)

26. G. Bothin, Modern Cosmological Observations and Problems. (Chapter 5. Taylor &

Francis, London, 1998).

27. L. Campanelli; P. Cea and L. Tedesco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 131302 (2006)